I received the WotC email with the link for the playtest packet.  (End of playtest report.)

Good Lord.

Using D&D as a reference in this whole mess about maps vs abstraction.

All editions of D&D have a lot to do with numbers in their rules. Since we're a group of people here who seem pretty up on its history, it's background is from military wargaming.

- Hit Points
- Armor Class
- Movement
- Attack Ranges
- Initiative
- The battlefield itself, which D&D rules also have specific numeric guidance available:
  - How many people can occupy a specific area
  - How how high one has to be to have a height advantage over an         opponent
  - Cover and concealment

For some players, and GMs for that matter, these numbers are very important, and they want a proper reference so they can better judge the situation and make informed decisions based within the rules. Yes, the GM has to make decisions in the initial layout, but there's less fuss. Because for players who are trying to make decisions based on the rules by numbers have a clear frame of reference to ask questions if they have any (Thank you John Morrow).

Map and figures handles this situation well and D&D has been on the balance, map friendly.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

All editions of D&D also have a lot to do with allowing a group to use one's imagination to conceptualize situations. Since we're a group of people here who seem pretty up on its history, it's what made D&D distinct from its background in military wargaming.

For other players, and GMs for that matter, the numbers above are important. However, they are not so important that they can't take the descriptions that are provided by the GM as long as they understand them and can envision the situation in their imagination and make decisions based on the rules from there. Yes, this means that the GM makes decisions, but the decisions are based on an understanding of the rules, and the player's described actions to the moment. Sometimes this means that players have to ask questions, or the GM has to make clarifications, but for plenty of groups, including my own, the players and GMs can get on the same page conceptually and can go happily from there.

Discussion between the GM and Players, handles this situation well, and on the balance, D&D has been friendly to letting situations be established through imagination.

Some folks prefer one way, some folks prefer the other.

Can we talk about my 13th level Dwarf Fighter now? He has a +4 axe called Gorebeard and it's pretty badass.

Quote from: Kord's Boon;544622The Phrase 'Mother may I' seems designed to be patronizing and derogatory for the outset suggesting that those who engage in a particular play style are childish and superfluous.

You mean like all of the various attacks on 4e?  Perish the thought.  Oh, wait I forget myself, those are all valid, I mean, shit, it is 4e and all.

Though it is amusing to see all the panty twisting when the shoe is on the other foot.

But 4e is shit.

Quote from: gleichman;544608It's not the starting locations that are the most interest (although they are of some certainly), but the locations thereafter and the consistency of location throughout.

Those (for simulation style play) cannot be arbitrary

The starting locations have to be of the most interest, because the locations thereafter depend on it, and the consistency of location does not exist without it.

Crawl back to whatever mecca of dipshittery you were enjoying the past year or so.  I has been quite enjoyable having discussions around here without you flouncing in to derail things like a douchebag all the time.

Quote from: gleichman;544539It's simple.


I describe the current state (i.e. position) at the beginning of a combat round for a game that uses range and line of sight rules (i.e. D&D in all in flavors and many others beside).

From there I describe the positions in what is mostly relative terms.

Example:

- PC Bob is at the center of the combat area, North is defined so that the directions in terms of angles can be given...

- Orc A is 45' away at an angle of 40 degrees from PC Bob.

- PC Tom is 50' south of PC Bob, at an angle of 170 degrees

- Orc B is 75' due west of Orc C

- A 4 meter diameter boulder 2 meters in height lies 20' to the west of PC Bob at an angle of 310 degrees. The 20' distance mark is the center of the boulder.


From there I ask some basic questions that can be answered nearly instantly with maps and minis- you attempt to answer nearly instantly without the use of maps and minis (no more than a few seconds per question). The answer must be accuracte (i.e. to the closest degree and meter) and complete.

Then I tell you how some of the PCs and Orcs move, and give another set of questions to be answered again.

The last time I offered this test here, no one would take it.

1) Do we assume least or greatest distance within a 5' square, or middle of square?
2) You established Orc B's position off of Orc C, but gave no indication where Orc C is located.
3) You've interchanged meters and feet; you fail at even maintaining your own scale!

Orc A is 34.47' North, 28.92' East of Bob
Tom is 49.24' South, 8.68' East of Bob
Orc B & C are floating in Limbo
A roughly 15' by 5' boulder lies 12.86' North, 15.32' West of Bob

You'll also notice none of these distances are actually accurately reflected in a 5'x5' grid. They, themselves, are approximations.

This was all easily accomplished with a $5 calculator with the Sin and Cos function.

Now, will you shut the fuck up with your OneTrueWayism?

Quote from: Novastar;545018Now, will you shut the fuck up with your OneTrueWayism?

First, I didn't list my questions- just the setup and the rules. So you haven't answered anything yet.

Second, if someone willing to use a calculator and actually do all the math needed to manage the combat in this way- they are basically using an method equal to maps and mins.

And Third, it almost certainly took you a lot longer to do even the meaningless number crunching you did (for I had yet to post any questions) than even a child would take with a map and mini. So while acceptible- is that a way you'd actually want to play a game?

Quote from: gleichman;545022First, I didn't list my questions- just the setup and the rules. So you haven't answered anything yet.

It's all cool and all to set up rigged engineering tests like this, but that pretty much settles the matter as far as I'm concerned, because that's not how role playing games actually play like for the vast majority of people besides yourself. You would know that if you'd stop wearing your ass as a sound proof helmet.

Quote from: gleichman;545022Second, if someone willing to use a calculator and actually do all the math needed to manage the combat in this way- they are basically using an method equal to maps and mins.

You are the only one that wants to 'manage' combat like this.  Only the shitty DMs assume everyone else is a shitty DM that must be constrained with Asperger level Advanced Squad Leader rules in combat.

What does any of this have to do with 5e and the playtest? Inquiring minds want to know!

Quote from: Marleycat;545028What does any of this have to do with 5e and the playtest? Inquiring minds want to know!

Exactly nothing, but that is Gleichman's MO.  In this case, 5e appears to be actively denying his Aspie DM style, so it must be destroyed.

Quote from: StormBringer;545034Exactly nothing, but that is Gleichman's MO.  In this case, 5e appears to be actively denying his Aspie DM style, so it must be destroyed.

Keep to 4e/GURPS or some other similiar system then. It's not rocket science.

Quote from: Marleycat;545028What does any of this have to do with 5e and the playtest? Inquiring minds want to know!

A reminder, it a was an outgrowth of advantage/disadvantage and it's described GM fiat style in where and how the rule was to be applied.

I saw a correlation between the people who liked that method and people I previously noted disliked maps and minis. I'm exploring if the reason is similar for both.

So far, they are nearly identical.

Quote from: Marleycat;545035Keep to 4e/GURPS or some other similiar system then. It's not rocket science.

It's not a 5th edition thing (a system I'll never buy nor use myself).

People have the same debate no matter the system, and no matter how clear the rules say to use one method or the other.

Quote from: gleichman;545036A reminder, it a was an outgrowth of advantage/disadvantage and it's described GM fiat style in where and how the rule was to be applied.

I saw a correlation between the people who liked that method and people I previously noted disliked maps and minis. I'm exploring if the reason is similar for both.

So far, they are nearly identical.

I like the concept of advantage/disadvantage not because of the math but because 1)It says to GM's rulings not rules 2)It's quicker, that way I as a player can get on with stuff that interests me. Combat is fun but if it goes more than 5-10 rounds I get bored, unless it's the Big Boss Finale.